1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

When even telling the truth is wrong

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Andrew Flannigan, Dec 7, 2017.

  1. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I hold no brief for Phillip Hammond who is overseeing the worst assault on the poor for a century. On the other hand it's a bit much when he's attacked for admitting to doing the right thing. When explaining the Treasury's predictions of low productivity from the British work force he told the select committee...
    The immediate response from Anna Bird on behalf of Scope was NOT praise for Hammond pointing out we do the right thing. Instead she went in to full on attack mode
    Blinkered trendy lefty or what? :rolleyes:
     
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  2. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    It is a fundamental belief of all single issue proponents that you have to deny others the right to say what is objectively right. The theory is you create a political Right and force everyone to toe that line. It exists in environmentalism, and every other ism.

    Apart from being an extremely effective strategy, it is a fundamental tactic of the authoritarian left that has existed for a very long time. The authoritarian left didn't invent it and don't own it, they just develop and use political correctness better than others. It is much discussed and admired amongst their opponents, who are children in the game by comparison.
     
  3. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    Hammond's statement doesn't make sense.

    It's difficult to see how saying that something "certainly may do something" can be "the truth" anyway.

    As a more sensible discussion point than Hammond's utterance, I'm not sure how you can lump all "marginal groups" together and conclude they hamper productivity. It's a dickish thing to say and he should be called out on it.
     
  4. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    No it wasn't. He was simply pointing out that if you (rightly) emphasise social responsibility over greed you will have lower productivity per worker hour in a number of cases. The knee jerk reaction from Anna Bird was the "dickish" event.
     
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  5. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    That's not what he said
     
  6. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    No point in my arguing.
     
  7. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    Not if you're going to disagree with the quote you already included where he appears to be trying ( in garbled English ) to say that higher participation by marginal groups would lead to decreased productivity. This is clearly ridiculous. I'm with Scope on this
     
    Zou likes this.
  8. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Me too. Forcing disabled and sick people into work and then blaming them for lower than hoped for productivity is in no way "the right thing to do" - it's simply picking another target for pinning the blame for our mismanaged economy onto. He can gtf.
     
    willie45, Trannifan and Footloose like this.
  9. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Is that a reasoned response, or a politically correct one?

    I can't see that greater employment of disabled or other people (which is entirely desirable) can be by any stretch of the convoluted imagination likely to improve productivity. But it ought not to do it that much damage I would guess. His statement might be a lot of things, but ridiculous it clearly isn't.
     
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  10. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Exactly. My guess is his department have been looking for reasons why productivity's been dipping and spotted a correlation between the dip and the increase in the employment of disabled people. I'd hope they've done the research to clarify that it's not spurious and having done so sent it up the ladder. He's passed on this information to the committee for them to accept or question and he's pointed out that if this is the cause of the dip then it's a good thing and a price worth paying. How on earth can anyone take issue with that?
     
  11. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Mike,

    Quite unlike the authoritarian right, then?

    Also, the idea that employing relatively small numbers of disabled people could explain low British productivity strikes of (a) clutching at straws and (b) extremely poor taste.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  12. Trannifan

    Trannifan Well-Known Member

    In others words, typically Tory...................

    Lynn
     
  13. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Exactly.

    And there is no reason to suppose that disabled workers are any less productive doing the work they are employed to do.
    If they can not do the job people do not employ them to do it.

    On the other hand if you force a sick person to work, you can not expect to get the best out of them until they are well again.
    Nor can you expect to get much out of the healthy but work shy.
     
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Terry,

    Don't be silly! It's well known (in some circles) that cripples are stupid and worthless and have only themselves to blame for their misfortunes. Much the same applies to those whose politics lean to the left, come to think of it. Why have you a problem with fine, upstanding, hard-working, able-bodied Tories reminding them of this? Note to anyone thinking of quoting this out of context: "irony" does not mean "somewhat ferrous".

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    willie45 likes this.
  15. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    Well it is, because he's clearly implying it damages productivity which you've just agreed it shouldn't do o_O

    As such my statement is reasoned. It might also have the accidental attribute of being be politically correct. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  16. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    Couldn't have put it better than that really :)
     
  17. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Having climbed into my carbon fibre armour I'm going to say that when a tory minister says "part of the reason why production per man hour has dropped is because we're encouraging less able people into the work force and that's a good thing for them" (or words to that effect) I think he deserves some credit for having broken away from the Borg collective. It really doesn't matter that he might be wrong. I just hope they don't squeeze him into a skin tight cat suit and high heels because that would be a step too far. :eek:
     
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    Except that it's nonsense. How many people are so bad at what they do. because they are handicapped in some way, that they can significantly lower overall national productivity figures? And how do these figures for "disabled" people compare with other economies? The latter question is probably impossible to answer because of lack of statistics and lack of agreement on what constitutes "disabled", but how many on here really believe that the Filthy French and the Hun actually have lower percentages of "disabled" people working than Brave Little England has?

    How many people who are not handicapped in any way, except morally, can't be arsed to do the job they're being paid to do?

    Why can't they be arsed? Is it, perhaps, the result of totally dysfunctional management (cf. politics) or the sort of inequality which gave rise to the old Soviet saying, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"? Or both?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    willie45, peterba and Zou like this.
  19. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    Of course it's nonsense but it's nice positive nonsense. On a day when the Brexit mob have been hoist with their own petard I'm prepared to take a charitable view and refuse to be dissuaded from it.
     
  20. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    What a kindly, generous fellow you are, even to those who are (not consistently or invariably, but distressingly often) "lower than vermin". Many, of course, had been lower than vermin well before that happy phrase was coined (1948, I think).

    Cheers,

    R.
     

Share This Page